Re: 4.1.4 blockers (Was: Re: Release 4.1.3 (4.1.4))

[Matthias Seidel]

Hi Raphael,

I am not sure if you forgot to write something? ;-)

Matthias


Am 20.05.2017 um 20:52 schrieb Raphael Bircher:
> Am .05.2017, 12:30 Uhr, schrieb Matthias Seidel
> :
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> That is alright with me...
>>
>> ...if we start working on a 4.2.0 branch as soon as possible! ;-)
>>
>> Regards, Matthias
>>
>>
>> Am 17.05.2017 um 17:36 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> My plan is to hold off on accepting this...
>>>
 On May 3, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Marcus  wrote:

 Am 03.05.2017 um 11:54 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> An installer for Windows (and macOS) with an outdated ASF logo is
> "broken" (in my eyes) ;-)
>
> 80% of our downloads are for Windows, 15% for macOS. They should
> see the
> new logo!
 the logos are visible just at 2 places:
 - splash screen
 --> With the modern PC systems these days it's visible for only -
 hm, let's say - 1,5 sec.

 - About dialog
 --> IMHO a dialog that is one of the most seldom opened dialogs in
 OpenOffice.

 I don't want to sound too negative. I just doubt that the most
 users will notice this graphical change. ;-)

 However, at the end it's the decision of the Release Manager if he
 is accepting this as a blocker.

> Apart from that, no code! Just some graphics...
 Sure, but every change is a risk. And it should be prevented in
 general when it's not necessary. I don't make a difference between
 code and non-code.

 Paranoia? Maybe.
 Experience? Yes.

 Marcus



> Am 03.05.2017 um 00:11 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 02.05.2017 um 23:51 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
>>> Am 02.05.2017 um 13:42 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> On Mar 22, 2017, at 8:43 AM, Matthias Seidel
>  wrote:
>
>>> If we decide to get the new ASF logos for the installer, we
>>> should also
>>> update the setup icons for Windows/macOS and the Intro/About
>>> Dialog. But
>>> there has been a discussion with Andrea and Marcus whether to
>>> include
>>> such things or not...
>> correct, new graphics cannot be a blocker for a release. Except the
>> existing ones are broken. But this is not the case here.
>>
>> Sorry, but we should clearly think twice if a change is necessary
>> for
>> a bugfix release. Every change has its own risk.
>>
>> My 2 ct.
>>
>> Marcus

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Fwd: Problem with Open Office before and after installing new update

[Dave Fisher]

For what it's worth

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Hugo Costa 
> Date: May 21, 2017 at 1:36:19 PM EDT
> To: "us...@openoffice.apache.org" 
> Cc: Rory O'Farrell ,  Martin Groenescheij 
> ,  Brian Barker 
> Subject: Re: Problem with Open Office before and after installing new update
> Reply-To: us...@openoffice.apache.org
> Reply-To: Hugo Costa 
> 
> I begin the campaign  :  DO NOT UPGRADE  the OPEN OFFICE  UNLESS the SPELL 
> CHECK IS GOING TO WORK   .. I don know who decides when to upgrade it,  but 
> how many of us have a problem  with the spell check after it.
> The  solution given, solution at end, made with respect,  is Neanderthal Time 
>  !!!
> 
> I saw it the same answer before in this  "chat"Spell check is an aptitude old 
> as word editors.  Do not touch it.
> 
> Letś stand on it :  I vote DO NOT UPGRADE  the OPEN OFFICE  UNLESS the SPELL 
> CHECK IS GOING TO WORK  
> 
> 
>On Thursday, May 18, 2017 3:52 AM, Rory O'Farrell  wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 01:58:06 + (UTC)
> Matt Wiser  wrote:
> 
>>   Hi. Matt Wiser here, and I have been a longtime user of OpenOffice since 
>> the Win98 days on a desktop, and now on my laptop. Today, I encountered a 
>> problem, and a forum search didn't help. I opened a document that I had 
>> created and saved two years ago, and it had wavy lines beneath all of the 
>> text, something that has never happened before. I downloaded and installed 
>> the update to the new version just released, and the same thing happens! 
>> Only by disabling the automatic spell check does the wavy line disappear. 
>> Language has been set to English (USA) as the default setting. What's going 
>> on here? 
>> Thanks in advance for your assistance, and can someone tell me what's going 
>> on here? I am a casual user of my computer-probably with a Capital C, so, 
>> any help is appreciated. 
> 
> Start by renaming your OpenOffice user profile.
> 
> As you are using Windows close OpenOffice and the Quickstarter. Open File
> Explorer. Copy and paste %appdata%\OpenOffice\4 in the File Explorer 
> (sometimes called Windows Explorer)
> Address Bar and press Enter. Rename the "user" folder - "user.old" is a
> good choice. Start OpenOffice.
> 
> This cures most spellcheck problems.
> 
> -- 
> Rory O'Farrell 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 
> 

Re: Bugzilla information

[Matthias Seidel]

I sometimes wonder if these people monitoring our mailing list don't
have a real life...

I know such zealots for almost 30 years now.
They do not understand that people are free to do what they want and to
use what they want.

Matthias


Am 21.05.2017 um 11:13 schrieb Marcus:
> Am 20.05.2017 um 21:35 schrieb Meh:
>> Hey I saw the bugzilla thread and thought I'd share some info;
>
> another attempt to tell a story that only specific people want to
> know. How boring.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Bugzilla

[Dave Fisher]

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> 
>> Here are some of mine. I am sure others differ.
>> 
>> (1) investigate and fix security holes.
> 
> +1 
> 
>> (2) frequent releases.
> 
> +-0 or -1
> 
> In practice, a time interval of 12-15 months would be sufficient.

More frequent releases are needed for two reasons.

- security fixes
- making sure we have several people who can be release manager.

Feature releases can be on an interval you describe.

> 
> Note: the release cycle of LO is much too short, even if this is always 
> presented as an advantage.
> I could write "imho", but the truth is that the one is a tangible practice 
> problem for professional office users. Because I offer commercial support for 
> OO and LO, I know what I'm talking about.
> 
>> (3) near one to one conversion to and from Microsoft Office.
> 
> +-0
> 
> Do you know the story of the hare and the hedgehog? 
> http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm187.html
> 
> 
> Yes, the users want that, but would not it be right and honest to tell the 
> users: 
> 'if you want MS Office, then use MS Office and not OO'

Users want to convert to AOO but cannot easily. Users want to share with 
friends on MSFT. Having a great divide is not tenable. Perhaps this is an 
extension.

> 
>> (4) deconflicted feature requests.
> 
> I do not know what you mean specifically with "deconflicted".

Raphael mentioned that feature requests bite each other. In prioritizing these 
we should pick which way.
> 
> 
>> What do people think?
> 
> I think _in the present situation_ it is better to work more and to discuss 
> less.

Agreed, but I'd still like to know what others think.

> 
> I am unfortunately not a programmer of OO, but I support the project with 
> user support, as a member of the project www.prooo-box.org and as a moderator 
> in the forum http://openoffice.org.
> I have regularly supported the project through translations of the release 
> notes into the German language.

Thank you.

Regards,
Dave
> 
> 
> 
> greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Dave Fisher]

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> 
>> Meh had some misstatements of fact, 
> 
> And why are we silent about this?

The misstatements are minor. Dennis's name and the count of Google fuzz on LO 
is an order of magnitude too low. It is >300.

> 
> If AOO were my project, I would defend myself against such statements legally.
> 
> As a community, we can not defend ourselves legally, but we should defend 
> ourselves publicly.
> 
>> but the description of 
>> other projects was interesting. I don't care to correct the 
>> misstatements.
>> 
>> We have work to do here. Onward!
> 
> And the TDF should apologize for the FUD of the past and dissociate oneself 
> from the people who are today FUD! Public and clear!

If you care about this then you should discuss on the TDF lists as an 
individual. I don't see how it will help us get developers here.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> 
> greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 

> Meh had some misstatements of fact, 

And why are we silent about this?

If AOO were my project, I would defend myself against such statements legally.

As a community, we can not defend ourselves legally, but we should defend 
ourselves publicly.

> but the description of 
> other projects was interesting. I don't care to correct the 
> misstatements.
> 
> We have work to do here. Onward!

And the TDF should apologize for the FUD of the past and dissociate oneself 
from the people who are today FUD! Public and clear!


greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 

> Here are some of mine. I am sure others differ.
> 
> (1) investigate and fix security holes.

+1 

> (2) frequent releases.

+-0 or -1

In practice, a time interval of 12-15 months would be sufficient.

Note: the release cycle of LO is much too short, even if this is always 
presented as an advantage.
I could write "imho", but the truth is that the one is a tangible practice 
problem for professional office users. Because I offer commercial support for 
OO and LO, I know what I'm talking about.

> (3) near one to one conversion to and from Microsoft Office.

+-0

Do you know the story of the hare and the hedgehog? 
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm187.html


Yes, the users want that, but would not it be right and honest to tell the 
users: 
'if you want MS Office, then use MS Office and not OO'

> (4) deconflicted feature requests.

I do not know what you mean specifically with "deconflicted".


> What do people think?

I think _in the present situation_ it is better to work more and to discuss 
less.

I am unfortunately not a programmer of OO, but I support the project with user 
support, as a member of the project www.prooo-box.org and as a moderator in the 
forum http://openoffice.org.
I have regularly supported the project through translations of the release 
notes into the German language.



greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Dave Fisher]

Waiting for an apology that's never going to come is not going to help.

Meh had some misstatements of fact, but the description of other projects was 
interesting. I don't care to correct the misstatements.

We have work to do here. Onward!

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
>> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 
> 
>> Reread what Simon wrote. Key phrase is those who work on both.
>> 
>> Also IBM as a company left the project 2.5 years ago and Rob 
>> left a year ago. 
> 
> Have the TDF members ever apologized for their insults to Rob (and other 
> Apache members)?
> Has the TDF ever criticized those who spread FUD over AOO?
> 
>> In this case it is not helpful to reopen 
>> these hurts and past issues.
> 
> I think that LO and AOO are two independent projects and that both have their 
> right to existence.
> 
> Some LO members, on the other hand, think it should only be LO, and that LO 
> is the successor to OOo. We can not accept this because the truth is the 
> OpenOffice is the original and LO is the fork.
> 
> What does TDF do? Where does it call for reconciliation? Where does it 
> criticize its own community members to spread FUD?
> 
> 
> Did you read what was written of "Meh" today? Where is the criticism of the 
> TDF against such mailing list posts?
> 
> And please understand that such statements, as she pronounced "Meh", should 
> damage AOO.
> 
> And tell me: where are the AOO members doing the same on LO mailing lists? I 
> do not see anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> greetings,
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net] 

> Reread what Simon wrote. Key phrase is those who work on both.
> 
> Also IBM as a company left the project 2.5 years ago and Rob 
> left a year ago. 

Have the TDF members ever apologized for their insults to Rob (and other Apache 
members)?
Has the TDF ever criticized those who spread FUD over AOO?

> In this case it is not helpful to reopen 
> these hurts and past issues.

I think that LO and AOO are two independent projects and that both have their 
right to existence.

Some LO members, on the other hand, think it should only be LO, and that LO is 
the successor to OOo. We can not accept this because the truth is the 
OpenOffice is the original and LO is the fork.

What does TDF do? Where does it call for reconciliation? Where does it 
criticize its own community members to spread FUD?


Did you read what was written of "Meh" today? Where is the criticism of the TDF 
against such mailing list posts?

And please understand that such statements, as she pronounced "Meh", should 
damage AOO.

And tell me: where are the AOO members doing the same on LO mailing lists? I do 
not see anyone.



greetings,
Jörg


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Jörg,

Reread what Simon wrote. Key phrase is those who work on both.

Also IBM as a company left the project 2.5 years ago and Rob left a year ago. 
In this case it is not helpful to reopen these hurts and past issues.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 21, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> 
>> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:46 PM
> 
>> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jörg Schmidt 
> 
>> Repeating untrue statements
> 
> This is not an untrue statement.
> 
>> TDF has moved on
> 
> I have experienced how high members of the TDF called Rob Weir as liars and 
> attacked other members of Apache. 
> And the same people want to see AOO dead today.
> 
> 
> 
> Jörg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Dave Fisher]

Hi Jörg,

To think positively what should be the project's development goals? I think if 
we are going to attract developers and companies we need an agenda or rough 
roadmap.

Here are some of mine. I am sure others differ.

(1) investigate and fix security holes.
(2) frequent releases.
(3) near one to one conversion to and from Microsoft Office.
(4) deconflicted feature requests.

What do people think?

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On May 21, 2017, at 3:36 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:

>> From: Marcus [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de] 
> 
>> maybe, but I was talking about more than just developers. 
>> Sure, we need 
>> more but we need also man-power to work on the additional reports. 
>> Currently we have a large number of them open and it won't 
>> get less in 
>> the future when the proposal comes true. ;-)
> 
> My answer is simple and very clear:
> Why should you edit bugreports (I mean in Bugzilla etc.) as long as you are 
> _not_ sure, in continuation of this work, then also programmers fix the bugs? 
>  
> 
> Sorry, this is my honest answer.
> 
>> In project of volunteers we haven't hard arguments to say 
>> what one "has" 
>> to do (like salary, promotion, more things that work well in 
>> the private 
>> economy business).
> 
> Interesting answer, because it makes a mistake of the ASF clear: there is no 
> way to donate, for individual projects. (except for large single donations)
> _But this is not my topic today._
> 
>> But in general, I would also expect that there is a base of 
>> self-motivation and an eye for the important things.
> 
> Perhaps, but: expectation is not reality and in reality there is this view 
> (so far) not (imho).
> 
> But I do not want to discuss further, because it makes no sense as long as 
> the individual interests of the volunteers are defended against the interests 
> of the project ... Sorry.
> 
> Why is my answer so negative?
> Because I am longer than 10 years in the OpenOffice-project and always hear 
> the same answers. Answers that do not bring us forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jörg
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Jörg Schmidt]

> Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:46 PM

> On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jörg Schmidt 

> Repeating untrue statements

This is not an untrue statement.

> TDF has moved on

I have experienced how high members of the TDF called Rob Weir as liars and 
attacked other members of Apache. 
And the same people want to see AOO dead today.



Jörg







-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Simon Phipps]

Jörg

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
>
> Today the TDF is not independent, but depends on several companies,
> instead of one. These companies may also be very community-friendly, but
> again there is dependency and this dependency is actively exploited.
>

Please stop, this is poisonous. None of us who volunteer in both projects
recognise the description you (and you alone) keep giving of TDF and LO.
Repeating untrue statements like these over and over discourages
involvement by creating a hostile environment and promotes division. TDF
has moved on; it's time you did too.

Simon

Re: Bugzilla

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:peter.kov...@posteo.de] 

> Imho that's is what you have to do if you want to go into 
> commerce. And after we have rebuild the community we might 
> need to build or invite a commerce entity, too. Without hard 
> feelings. ;)
> 
> What was the whish that the ooo community  wanted, in your opinion?

A truly independent foundation. 

Please note: SUN was a very very community-friendly company, but SUN did not 
allow any independent community, and the community wanted to change it with an 
independent foundation.

Today the TDF is not independent, but depends on several companies, instead of 
one. These companies may also be very community-friendly, but again there is 
dependency and this dependency is actively exploited.

> I think this is just my crazy idea.
> And I think a focus on a participant community is a way to 
> make us special for others to get involved. 

I did not mean the idea is crazy.

> What would be your way?

Any time to work with the forces that we have concretely. We should not set 
priorities that can be misunderstood as conditions.

What I would like is a community that is aware of the necessity of its 
independence, but is not afraid to work with companies.


I mean:
A strong community is even stronger by the help of companies,
but a weak community is further weakened by the interference of companies.



greetings,
Jörg

> >
> >
> >
> >Gruß
> >Jörg
> Gruss zurück
> Peter 

Oh, I see, I have greeted in German, that was no special purpose, only 
coincidence.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Peter Kovacs]

See below:

Am 21. Mai 2017 10:01:17 MESZ schrieb "Jörg Schmidt" :
>
>> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:peter.kov...@posteo.de] 
>
>> Imho looking for Companies & Investors is the route Libre is moving. 
>
>One word:
>The TDF is not the kind of foundation that the OOo community once
>wanted. The TDF is a money and PR machine for companies and LO is as
>dependent on these companies as once OOo of Oracle or Sun.
>I see people in the LO-community who work a lot but have little to say.
>Well-known people, who once advanced OpenOffice.org and enjoyed respect
>there.
Imho that's is what you have to do if you want to go into commerce. And after 
we have rebuild the community we might need to build or invite a commerce 
entity, too. Without hard feelings. ;)

What was the whish that the ooo community  wanted, in your opinion?
>
>> I don't think doing the same is smart. 
>> I would rather prefer the opposite direction and focus on 
>> community building. 
>> And that is something we can do without any programmer skills. 
>> We can claim that we are not bound today to anyone. The 
>> structure of Apache makes sure of that, I think this is 
>> something we differ a lot from TDF and we should utilize. 
>> Also I think we should try to do a bit of old school Open 
>> Source. No market focus for devs, rather go for the tech thingy. 
>> I think we have to much competition on our minds.
>
>This would not be my way, but if developers want to follow this path,
>and a good software is generated, then this good software (relatively)
>automatically gets market meaning.
>Therefore, I will _not_ contradict this way, when it is the way which
>the developers want.
I think this is just my crazy idea.
And I think a focus on a participant community is a way to make us special for 
others to get involved. 
What would be your way?
>
>
>
>Gruß
>Jörg
Gruss zurück
Peter 
>
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

???

[Пламен Тошев]

Next to Open Office Creators!
-
- Suggestion and question:
- Can not you swipe the counter at the bottom left of the window to
directly enter the page number? It's about preparing a new document or
editing a document in another style to be able to mark each page directly
and saved, stored in a PDF file or another because the current version is
quite complex - it's tough for many and takes time and nerves. The other
thing that interests me is: Why there is no option or possibility of the
"Colors" window at the bottom - Defining Custom Colors Like Some Photo
Editing Programs !? And where can I find "gradients" with a neon, gold and
silver color !? Thanks for your attention and understanding.
-
P.P. "I'm sorry, but the translation is Google, so I put it on both
languages.

-- 
ZOGRAFYS

Re: Bugzilla

[Raphael Bircher]

Hi Peter

Am .05.2017, 08:34 Uhr, schrieb Peter Kovacs :


There are enough offices around.
We have enough office suites who run all into the same direction, yes. But  
I think there is room for much more different office solution. Spend some  
time and read the feature request on Bugzilla. You will soon realize that  
many feature request bite each other. You can do one or the other, but not  
both. Office suites to day are nasty compromises. If you have specific  
versions for specific user groups, you could solve so many problems.


There is no point in starting from the scratch without any plan or  
vision.

I think, I have arguments for this.


Imho looking for Companies & Investors is the route Libre is moving.
I don't think doing the same is smart.
I would rather prefer the opposite direction and focus on community  
building.
And you want to do this only with volunteers? I say forget it. If AOO runs  
well, we have about 80 mails on the dev Mailing list per day. A pure  
Volunteer simply can't keep up with this load and still develop. An other  
problem is that you will get volunteers. But as soon they doing great  
work, they receive a Job offer from companies, and you will never see them  
again. No we need the companies. This is part of community building. We  
can maybe hold this version with non professional, but not improve it.  
Believe me we tryed it many times in the past. The native port of Mac OS X  
was the last real non company driven bigger improvement in OOo. And it  
would not be there, if not SUN jumped in with two devs to finish it.



And that is something we can do without any programmer skills.
We can claim that we are not bound today to anyone. The structure of  
Apache makes sure of that, I think this is something we differ a lot  
from TDF and we should utilize.
Also I think we should try to do a bit of old school Open Source. No  
market focus for devs, rather go for the tech thingy.

I think we have to much competition on our minds.

We have something that is a challenge to master. Especially our bugs.
I think there are developers out there that are fed up with the way open  
source works today.
Had a colleague talked on Friday, who told me exactly that. I stay with  
him in touch now. Who knows maybe he joins someday. (No promises)


I think if you take a look at today's capability of c++ it is an awesome  
language.

Our problem is not the language but we use different ones.
I am personally impressed by other languages too.
But the more different languages I use the more I am convinced that the  
language used does not matter. The concept, architecture and tooling  
does.

We need more helpers that simplify work, development wise.
I also suggest to not trying to fix one bug, but by solving a bug and  
uplift our code.


All the best
Peter


Am 21. Mai 2017 05:48:00 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan :

On 5/20/2017 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...

We have way too many users to abandon the 4.x branch completely. We
do need to handle security issues.

If we want start a rewrite for a 5.x then we will need to map the
functionality particularly in Calc. We will also need to pick a more
modern language compared to C++. We now have an XML schema which can
help us generate code. We did this for Java in Apache POI. The ODF
Toolkit is also still in the Incubator and it could be of use.

I think we should all think about it a little and then have a series
of video conferences reporting back to the community with a synopsis
step by step.


I can see a case for creating a new project to build a modern office
suite from scratch, if there are enough interested people to make it
viable.

I strongly disagree with calling it "OpenOffice" or assigning it an
OpenOffice version number, for the following reasons:

1. Doing so would create an expectation of compatibility that would
limit the options for the new suite.

2. Depending on how quickly the new suite is developed, and, after
release, its download rate relative to OpenOffice, we may want to
produce an actual OpenOffice 5.x. Using "OpenOffice 5.x" for the new
suite would limit the actual OpenOffice to 4.y, no matter how large y
gets, or how long demand for OpenOffice continues.

3. If you look at what I wrote above, using "OpenOffice" for the new
suite makes it very difficult to write clearly about the differences
between it and the current OpenOffice line.

I suggest that the people interested in writing new office suite should
pick a project name and either create an incubator podling or, if there
are enough members involved, create a new top level project.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional 

Re: Bugzilla information

[Marcus]

Am 20.05.2017 um 21:35 schrieb Meh:

Hey I saw the bugzilla thread and thought I'd share some info;


another attempt to tell a story that only specific people want to know. 
How boring.


Marcus



--

Ciao

Marcus

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla information

[Jörg Schmidt]

> From: Meh [mailto:espri...@yandex.ru] 

> The only reason AOO still exists is a community of people who 
> ideologically believe that GPL/LO is bad and unrestrictive 
> licenses are great.

No, that is not correct.

Here at AOO are also people who do not agree with the TDF, which is not a 
question of licenses.
The people at OpenOffice.org once wanted an independent foundation, but the TSF 
is dependent on companies, exactly the same as OOo was dependent on Oracle or 
Sun.

And let us not overlook the basic truth:
LibreOffice is the fork, not AOO.


Jörg



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Bugzilla information

[Meh]

Hey I saw the bugzilla thread and thought I'd share some info;
 
There have been 3 attempts by Apache and OpenOffice members in the past couple 
years to do a dignified retirement before the code rot creates an unusable 
state for AOO and it becomes an embarrassment for the FOSS community.
 
The most recent was by David Hamilton, the previous PM. There was some serious 
discussion around this until some people decided that they'd rather go down 
with the ship due to long standing grudges against people at The Document 
Foundation. (Really petty imo)
 
The only reason AOO still exists is a community of people who ideologically 
believe that GPL/LO is bad and unrestrictive licenses are great. Nothing wrong 
with that, just very inefficient use of people's time.
 
There are 4 consumer friendly, actively developed open source office suites in 
the market today: Abiword/Gnumeric, Libreoffice, Calligra, and OnlyOffice.
 
OnlyOffice and Libreoffice are actively pursuing cloud integration with cloud 
hosting providers (nextcloud, file cloud (proprietary), Seafile, Pydio, etc.). 
OnlyOffice was opensourced in 2015, and was built using a HTML5 and JavaScript 
base. It's probably going to be the new popular kid on the block for open 
source office software.
 
The people who worked at Sun that still want to work on OOo now work on the 
Libreoffice code. LO code is literally years ahead in coding development, 
refactoring, rewriting, etc. You won't get them back.
 
Google Fuzz identified 33 bugs in LO code and suggested a quarter of them were 
security vulnerabilities. It's likely that AOO has these vulnerabilities too 
but they won't be fixed.
 
Most AOO volunteers arrive, see the state of the project and then drift off to 
projects with larger communities.
 
Large tech companies don't see a need to invest in desktop only technology, if 
anything there will be more use of MPL licensed LO or OnlyOffice (new OO) as 
companies like Collabora already have sales account managers and developers 
making it an option for companies and governments wanting to stay away from MS.
 
TDF donations go directly and solely to LO project management and volunteer 
recruitment. There's a recent blog post on their planet that talks about how 
they use donated funds to fix things volunteers never would find interesting. 
AOO never received funds directly, only to the Apache Project. Apache 
distributes to what they think is important, and right now that is big data. 
This is unfair but not illogical.
 
There hasn't been a significant release in AOO for a few years now, only minor 
bug fixes. Old people like it because it works the same way it has for the 6 
years. However there are significant security risks to using AOO.
 
It's a great accomplishment of OOo that the brand has embedded into tech 
culture that people use the name when they think free office suite. But there 
won't be any new development on the project. There are too many new FOSS 
projects out there solving the same problems that AOO wants to solve, and the 
AOO demographic is getting smaller every month. Windows S will likely initiate 
a huge drop in CNET downloads and there will be a shift to LO over the next few 
years as they adopt more MS features.
 
If AOO wanted to survive as a project it would need to not be under the Apache 
Foundation, or there would need to be a company willing to spend money redoing 
everything what LO has done. But they won't, because even LO has competitors 
that do Base better (Kexi), Draw better (Inkscape), Impress better (Prezi, 
etc.).
 
TDF realises this and they've focused on writer, calc, and impress in the 
cloud. They'll likely be able to continue because of the community support, but 
I see OnlyOffice taking the FOSS crown. AOO? Maybe a Shuttleworth will bankroll 
developers? But why wouldn't he start from scratch with all the code rot? LO 
still hasn't finished translating the german comments and they've been working 
on it for years. i guess if you posted it all on Github devs might take notice?
 
I'm writing this as an appeal to take a mature response to the state of your 
project. You have huge branding power and millions of older people use your 
project. It's dangerous for these people to continue using your software when 
it's susceptible to exploits that won't be fixed anytime soon. Please inform 
them as to the state of your project instead of pretending everything is hunky 
dory. When LO releases their Google Fuzz code fixes hackers will compare the 
changes to your​ code and people will have identity theft, lose files, etc. 
Just so you guys can say: "oh, you suck LO, our ideology is better!" Meanwhile 
people are comparing OnlyOffice​ to Libreoffice when they look at FOSS office 
software.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Bugzilla

[Peter Kovacs]

There are enough offices around. 
There is no point in starting from the scratch without any plan or vision. 

Imho looking for Companies & Investors is the route Libre is moving. 
I don't think doing the same is smart. 
I would rather prefer the opposite direction and focus on community building. 
And that is something we can do without any programmer skills. 
We can claim that we are not bound today to anyone. The structure of Apache 
makes sure of that, I think this is something we differ a lot from TDF and we 
should utilize. 
Also I think we should try to do a bit of old school Open Source. No market 
focus for devs, rather go for the tech thingy. 
I think we have to much competition on our minds.

We have something that is a challenge to master. Especially our bugs. 
I think there are developers out there that are fed up with the way open source 
works today. 
Had a colleague talked on Friday, who told me exactly that. I stay with him in 
touch now. Who knows maybe he joins someday. (No promises)

I think if you take a look at today's capability of c++ it is an awesome 
language. 
Our problem is not the language but we use different ones. 
I am personally impressed by other languages too.
But the more different languages I use the more I am convinced that the 
language used does not matter. The concept, architecture and tooling does. 
We need more helpers that simplify work, development wise.
I also suggest to not trying to fix one bug, but by solving a bug and uplift 
our code. 

All the best
Peter 


Am 21. Mai 2017 05:48:00 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan :
>On 5/20/2017 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>...
>> We have way too many users to abandon the 4.x branch completely. We
>> do need to handle security issues.
>>
>> If we want start a rewrite for a 5.x then we will need to map the
>> functionality particularly in Calc. We will also need to pick a more
>> modern language compared to C++. We now have an XML schema which can
>> help us generate code. We did this for Java in Apache POI. The ODF
>> Toolkit is also still in the Incubator and it could be of use.
>>
>> I think we should all think about it a little and then have a series
>> of video conferences reporting back to the community with a synopsis
>> step by step.
>
>I can see a case for creating a new project to build a modern office
>suite from scratch, if there are enough interested people to make it
>viable.
>
>I strongly disagree with calling it "OpenOffice" or assigning it an
>OpenOffice version number, for the following reasons:
>
>1. Doing so would create an expectation of compatibility that would
>limit the options for the new suite.
>
>2. Depending on how quickly the new suite is developed, and, after
>release, its download rate relative to OpenOffice, we may want to
>produce an actual OpenOffice 5.x. Using "OpenOffice 5.x" for the new
>suite would limit the actual OpenOffice to 4.y, no matter how large y
>gets, or how long demand for OpenOffice continues.
>
>3. If you look at what I wrote above, using "OpenOffice" for the new
>suite makes it very difficult to write clearly about the differences
>between it and the current OpenOffice line.
>
>I suggest that the people interested in writing new office suite should
>pick a project name and either create an incubator podling or, if there
>are enough members involved, create a new top level project.
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org